whether the occupier knew, or ought to have known, there was a danger, or that people were coming on to the property

what had been done to reduce or warn people about the danger

whether it would have been reasonable to expect the occupier to do anything else to reduce the danger

anything else that seems relevant

Prior to 1987 courts looked very closely at how the person came to be on the land when deciding how careful the occupier had to be. As a result of amendments in 1987 to what was then called the Wrongs Act (the current Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA)) and the High Court decision in Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479; [1987] HCA 7, it is no longer important to classify the injured person as a licensee or invitee. The court will still however take into account how the person came to be on the land in deciding how careful the occupier should have been for that person's safety.

If a person is a trespasser no duty of care is owed [Civil Liability Act 1936 (SA) s 20(6)] unless the person's presence was reasonably foreseeable and the dangers were such that precautions should have been taken for his or her protection.

When the occupier is a friend, he or she may be willing to admit negligence in order to help an injured friend but the occupier must be careful not to breach the conditions of an insurance policy. Many policies contain a term forbidding such admissions. In practice, occupiers should get their own legal advice, even if they are insured.

The Occupier's Responsibilities : Last Revised: Tue May 20th 2014The content of the Law
Handbook is made available as
a public service
for information purposes only
and should not be relied upon
as a substitute for legal
advice. See Disclaimer for
details. For free and
confidential legal advice
in South Australia call 1300
366 424.